Please login first
David Pennington  - - - 
Top co-authors See all
Jo Dewulf

219 shared publications

Department of Green Chemistry and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Serenella Sala

74 shared publications

European Commission Joint Research Centre, Directorate D - Sustainable Resources - Bio-Economy Unit, Ispra, Italy

Gian Andrea Blengini

31 shared publications

Politecnico di Torino

Philip Nuss

21 shared publications

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Directorate D - Sustainable Resources, Ispra 21027, Italy

Nedal T. Nassar

19 shared publications

Center for Industrial Ecology, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, United States

Publication Record
Distribution of Articles published per year 
(2004 - 2017)
Total number of journals
published in
Publications See all
Article 0 Reads 6 Citations EU methodology for critical raw materials assessment: Policy needs and proposed solutions for incremental improvements Gian Andrea Blengini, Philip Nuss, Jo Dewulf, Viorel Nita, L... Published: 01 September 2017
Resources Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.05.008
DOI See at publisher website
Article 0 Reads 3 Citations The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint ini... Karen Allacker, Fabrice Mathieux, David Pennington, Rana Pan... Published: 03 January 2017
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1244-0
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
This paper explains in details the rationale behind the choice of the end-of-life allocation approach in the European Commission Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods. The end-of-life allocation formula in the PEF/OEF methods aims at enabling the assessment of all end-of-life scenarios possible, including recycling, reuse, incineration (with heat recovery) and disposal for both open- and closed-loop systems in a consistent and reproducible way. It presents how the formula builds on existing standards and how and why it deviates from them. Various end-of-life allocation approaches and formulas, mainly taken not only from/based on existing environmental impact assessment methods and/or standards but also one original linearly degressive approach, were analysed against a predetermined set of criteria, reflecting the overall aim of the PEF/OEF methods. This set of criteria is physical realism, distribution of burdens and benefits in a product cascade system and applicability. Besides the qualitative analysis, the various formulas were implemented for several products and for different scenarios regarding recycled content and recyclability to check the robustness of the outcomes, exemplary expressed for the Global Warming Potential impact category. As reaching physical realism was impossible at both the product and overall product cascade system level by any of the end-of-life approaches analysed, one of both had to be prioritised. The paper explains in details why a product level approach was preferred in the context of the PEF/OEF methods. In consequence, allocation of the end-of-life processes which are related to more than one product in a product cascade system is needed and should be carefully considered as it has a major influence on the results and decision taking. A formula taking into account the number of recycling cycles of a material was identified as preferred to reach physical realism and to allocate burdens and benefits of repeatedly recycling of a material over the different products in a product cascade system. However, this approach was not selected for the PEF/OEF methods as data on the number of recycling cycles was insufficiently available (for the time being) for all products on the market and hence fails the criterion of “applicability”. This explains why, instead, a formula based on the 50:50 approach—allocating shared end-of-life processes equally between the previous and subsequent product—was selected for the PEF/OEF methods.
Article 0 Reads 6 Citations Criticality on the international scene: Quo vadis? Jo Dewulf, Gian Andrea Blengini, David Pennington, Philip Nu... Published: 01 December 2016
Resources Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.09.008
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
This paper brings a discussion on the current state-of-the-art in criticality assessment in an international context. It analyzes the status of resource criticality concepts and their calculation methods. The current practice often exhibits a common two-axis assessment framework but the way the two axes are further operationalized shows heterogeneous approaches. Apart from the two-axis as key element of criticality assessment, the scope of the materials, the role of substitution, the delineation of the supply chain and data, and indicator selection are addressed as key elements. The abovementioned criticality assessment practice is approached in function of the upcoming international debate on criticality. The paper tackles the role of criticality assessment in the context of the sustainability assessment toolbox and it proposes a clear distinction between criticality assessment and resilience to criticality. The insights offered in the paper may feed the international discussion in the identification of elements that may be harmonized and elements that may be better left open in function of the particular application.
Article 0 Reads 2 Citations Challenges and opportunities for web-shared publication of quality-assured life cycle data: the contributions of the Lif... Marco Recchioni, Gian Andrea Blengini, Simone Fazio, Fabrice... Published: 16 June 2015
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0907-6
DOI See at publisher website
Article 4 Reads 9 Citations Toward an Overall Analytical Framework for the Integrated Sustainability Assessment of the Production and Supply of Raw ... Jo Dewulf, Lucia Mancini, Gian Andrea Blengini, Serenella Sa... Published: 03 June 2015
Journal of Industrial Ecology, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12289
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
The sustainable production and supply of raw materials (“nonenergy raw materials”) and primary energy carriers (“energy raw materials”) is a core element of many policies. The natural resource base for their production and supply, and the access thereto, are limited. Moreover, raw material supply is high on environmental and social impact agendas as well. A broad, quantitative framework that supports decision makers is recommended so as to make use of raw materials and primary energy carriers more sustainably. First, this article proposes a holistic classification of raw materials and primary energy carriers. This is an essential prerequisite for developing an integrated sustainability assessment framework (ISAF). Indeed, frequently, only a subset of raw materials and primary energy carriers are considered in terms of their source, sector, or final application. Here, 85 raw materials and 30 primary energy carriers overall are identified and grouped into seven and five subgroups, respectively. Next, this article proposes a quantitative ISAF for the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers, covering all the sustainability pillars. With the goal of comprehensiveness, the proposed ISAF integrates sustainability issues that have been covered and modeled in quite different quantitative frameworks: ecosystem services; classical life cycle assessment (LCA); social LCA; resource criticality assessment; and particular international concerns (e.g., conflict minerals assessment). The resulting four areas of concerns (i.e., environmental, technical, economic, and social/societal) are grouped into ten specific sustainability concerns. Finally, these concerns are quantified through 15 indicators, enabling the quantitative sustainability assessment of the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers.
Article 2 Reads 18 Citations Rethinking the Area of Protection “Natural Resources” in Life Cycle Assessment Jo Dewulf, Lorenzo Benini, Lucia Mancini, Serenella Sala, Gi... Published: 17 April 2015
Environmental Science & Technology, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00734
DOI See at publisher website PubMed View at PubMed